Q & A Why did Paul break the Old Testament in Hebrews 8:13?

[JohnD70X7]

Hebrews 8:13 (KJV)
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
The author of the book of Hebrews affirms the Old Testament which stated:
Jeremiah 31:31–34 (KJV)
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
In fact, the subject of the previous verses to Hebrews 8:13 (and in fact the entire book of Hebrews) is referring to this very text in Jeremiah. The book of Hebrews is as a commentary on Jeremiah 31:31–34.
The book of Hebrews (written to Hebrews) is about the Torah and the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. But Jeremiah 31:31–34 is the key passage regarding the New Covenant replacing the Old.
And it was the people of Israel that broke the Old Covenant, not Paul… and not God.

 

[Benjamin Müller]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. the Children of Israel were likened to an adulterous wife throughout the Old Testament. God likened the First Covenant as a marriage contract--a marriage takes two. Israel, while married to the Lord, went whoring after other nations and playing the harlot with other gods. God, after such a time, declared that he would divorce Israel.

Legally speaking, when two parties sign a contract, and it takes both of them to officially break that contract. The wife who says I want a divorce and the husband won't grant it, is stuck married. Under some legal circumstances, the contract can be broken on a case of abandonment, which I believe is the charge God lays against Israel.

So, no, you're incorrect in saying: it was the people of Israel that broke the Old Covenant, not Paul… and not God. God did break the covenant with them, but only because they broke it first and refused to return and be a faithful wife.

Once God was free from the old covenant, God would be free to remarry a people who would keep His laws. But while He was under contract, even He would uphold the contract.

 

[JohnD70X7]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. the Children of Israel were likened to an adulterous wife throughout the Old Testament. God likened the First Covenant as a marriage contract--a marriage takes two. Israel, while married to the Lord, went whoring after other nations and playing the harlot with other gods. God, after such a time, declared that he would divorce Israel.

Legally speaking, when two parties sign a contract, and it takes both of them to officially break that contract. The wife who says I want a divorce and the husband won't grant it, is stuck married. Under some legal circumstances, the contract can be broken on a case of abandonment, which I believe is the charge God lays against Israel.

So, no, you're incorrect in saying: it was the people of Israel that broke the Old Covenant, not Paul… and not God. God did break the covenant with them, but only because they broke it first and refused to return and be a faithful wife.

Once God was free from the old covenant, God would be free to remarry a people who would keep His laws. But while He was under contract, even He would uphold the contract.

No, the Lord made the stipulations up front that the covenant / contract entered into by both parties was depended upon compliance with the covenant or it would be broken.
And Jeremiah 31:32 / Yirimyahu 31:31 (Tanakh) clearly state that it was the people who broke the covenant.
Your argument is with him, not me. I simply read God's word and repeat it.

 

[Benjamin Müller]

I'm not denying they broke the covenant, but God also broke the covenant with them to instate a new covenant.

Read Jeremiah 3, and Zechariah 11:10, "And I took my staff, Beauty, and cut it in two, that I might break the covenant which I had made with all the peoples."

You have to read the entire context of the old testament to understand the breaking of the first covenant not just one section in Jeremiah and Hebrews. Israel is to blame for being a faithless wife; but to terminate a contract also takes the 2nd party to approve the termination. In Zechariah, God, confirms the breaking of the covenant by saying 'I' might break the covenant.

Paul was a lawyer and even he understood that in legal terms.

 

[Soyeong]

Hebrews 8:13 (KJV)
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
The author of the book of Hebrews affirms the Old Testament which stated:
Jeremiah 31:31–34 (KJV)
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
In fact, the subject of the previous verses to Hebrews 8:13 (and in fact the entire book of Hebrews) is referring to this very text in Jeremiah. The book of Hebrews is as a commentary on Jeremiah 31:31–34.
The book of Hebrews (written to Hebrews) is about the Torah and the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. But Jeremiah 31:31–34 is the key passage regarding the New Covenant replacing the Old.
And it was the people of Israel that broke the Old Covenant, not Paul… and not God.

In order for one thing to make something else obsolete, it needs to do everything that it does and more, so the New Covenant makes the Mosaic Covenant obsolete insofar as it still involves following the Torah (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6-7). In Galatians 3:16-19, the promises of a covenant that has been ratified are not made void by later covenants, so again newer covenants are inclusive of older ones. There are many verses that say that the Mosaic Covenant is eternal, so again it can only be made obsolete by a covenant that is inclusive of it plus more.

In Deuteronomy 30:1-10, it prophesies about a time when the Israelites will return from exile, God will circumcise their hearts, and they will return to obedience to the Torah. In Ezekiel 36:26-27 and Jeremiah 31:33, they are speaking in regard to the New Covenant, the return of the Israelites from exile, and God circumcising our hearts by means of the Spirit by saying that He will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His spirit to lead us in obedience to the Torah, and where God will put the Torah in our minds and write it on our hearts. In Romans 2:25-29, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Torah, which is the same way to tell for a Jew, and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those who have uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey the Torah. So the New Covenant is all about Israel returning from exile and returning to obedience to the Torah.

 

[Soyeong]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. the Children of Israel were likened to an adulterous wife throughout the Old Testament. God likened the First Covenant as a marriage contract--a marriage takes two. Israel, while married to the Lord, went whoring after other nations and playing the harlot with other gods. God, after such a time, declared that he would divorce Israel.

Legally speaking, when two parties sign a contract, and it takes both of them to officially break that contract. The wife who says I want a divorce and the husband won't grant it, is stuck married. Under some legal circumstances, the contract can be broken on a case of abandonment, which I believe is the charge God lays against Israel.

So, no, you're incorrect in saying: it was the people of Israel that broke the Old Covenant, not Paul… and not God. God did break the covenant with them, but only because they broke it first and refused to return and be a faithful wife.

Once God was free from the old covenant, God would be free to remarry a people who would keep His laws. But while He was under contract, even He would uphold the contract.

While God wrote a certificate of divorce for just the Northern Kingdom in Jeremiah 3:8, he continued to call for her to return to him throughout the rest of the chapter, which raises a significant problem because Deuteronomy 24:1-4 forbids a woman to return to her first husband after she has been divorced and been with another. The only way that she could return to her first husband without committing adultery would be if her first marriage were dissolved through his death, so it was a mystery how God was going to accomplish this. This is the point that Paul was making in Romans 7:1-4 when he said that he was speaking to those who know the law and why we need to die to the law through the body of Christ (the death of her first husband), so that we may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. So the New Covenant is about Israel returning from exile and returning to obedience to the Torah, which is the terms of their marriage contract with God.

 

[Benjamin Müller]

You've brought something to my attention that I need to study and that's whether or not Judah has been divorced. I assumed she was, but now I'm not sure and have to look into it.

 

[JohnD70X7]

In order for one thing to make something else obsolete, it needs to do everything that it does and more, so the New Covenant makes the Mosaic Covenant obsolete insofar as it still involves following the Torah (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6-7). In Galatians 3:16-19, the promises of a covenant that has been ratified are not made void by later covenants, so again newer covenants are inclusive of older ones.

Yeshua Jesus fulfilled the Torah. No one else did. No one else could. Not even the Apostle Paul who was "blameless according to Law" (Philippians 3:6)... but was not saved by it (verses 7 and 8).

Torah can only be kept by anyone other than Messiah by the imputed righteousness of Messiah through faith in him (B"H). When we are saved we are no longer under Torah (Galatians 3:24-25) but unt the New Covenant of Grace.

 

[Soyeong]

Yeshua Jesus fulfilled the Torah. No one else did. No one else could. Not even the Apostle Paul who was "blameless according to Law" (Philippians 3:6)... but was not saved by it (verses 7 and 8).

Torah can only be kept by anyone other than Messiah by the imputed righteousness of Messiah through faith in him (B"H). When we are saved we are no longer under Torah (Galatians 3:24-25) but unt the New Covenant of Grace.

According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire Torah, so countless people have done that.

Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and it is by the Torah that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so while we do not earn our salvation as the result of obeying it, living in obedience to it through faith in Jesus is nevertheless intrinsically part of the concept of him saving us from not living in obedience to it. In Psalms 119:29-30, David wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Torah, and he chose the way of faithfulness by choosing to obey it, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith, which is also why the New Covenant still involves following the Torah (Jeremiah 31:33).

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by treating him to walk in His way that he might know Him and Israel too, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so knowing God and Jesus is the goal of the Torah, which is eternal life (John 17:3), and that needs to inform how we interpret Philippians 3:6-8, in order to avoid misinterpreting it as saying that the Torah is rubbish and we just need to know Messiah instead. Rather, Paul had been obeying the Torah while not being focus on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the Torah, and that is what he counted as rubbish.

Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to walk in obedience to the Torah by word and by example, so in regard to Galatians 3:24-25, the Torah doesn't lead us to Messiah so that we can then reject everything that he taught and go back to living in sin, but rather the Torah leads us to him because it was given as a gift for the purpose of teaching us how to know him. Furthermore, in Galatians 3:26-29, every aspect of being children of God, through faith, in Christ, being children of Abraham, and heirs to the promise is directly connected to living in obedience to the Torah:

In 1 John 3:4-10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to the Torah are not children of God. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Torah. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked. In John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works as him. In Genesis 18:19, Genesis 26:4-5, and Deuteronomy 30:16, the promise was made to Abraham and brought about because he walked in God's way in obedience to the Torah, he taught his children how to do that, and because his children did that.

 

[JohnD70X7]

Only if you take the purposeful ideology and legalize each tenet as a requirement.

Love for God, love for fellow man fulfills Torah... ideally.

Which God? What love?

Once again, and I mean this as a last response...

Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ephesians 2:8-10 and Galatians 3:24-25 omit yeah repudiate the legalization (following of the Law / Torah) for salvation.

If scripture will not convince you of this, I certainly cannot and I will no longer try.

Blessings.

 

[Soyeong]

Only if you take the purposeful ideology and legalize each tenet as a requirement.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Love for God, love for fellow man fulfills Torah... ideally.

Which God? What love?

Love fulfills the Torah because everything in it teaches us how to love God and our neighbor. For example, if we love God and our neighbor, then we won't commit adultery, idolatry, murder, theft, favoritism, rape, kidnapping, and so forth for everything else commanded in it. The Bible often uses the same terms to describe aspects of the nature of the God of Israel as it does to describe aspect of the nature of the Torah, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12, which because it is God's instructions for how to act in accordance with those aspects of His nature. When we accordance with aspects of the nature of the God of Israel, we are expressing our love for those aspects of who He is, which is why there are many verses in both the OT and the NT that connect our love for Him with our obedience to His commandments, so everything that He chose to command was specifically commanded to teach us how to love a different aspect of who He is.

Once again, and I mean this as a last response...

Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ephesians 2:8-10 and Galatians 3:24-25 omit yeah repudiate the legalization (following of the Law / Torah) for salvation.

If scripture will not convince you of this, I certainly cannot and I will no longer try.

Blessings.

I agree with those verses, so my problem is not with those verses, but with your misunderstanding of them.

In Ephesians 2:8-10, we are new creations in Christ to do good works, so while it denies that our salvation is earned as the result of our good works, choosing to do good works by grace through faith is nevertheless a central part of our salvation. While there are many verses like Romans 4:1-5 that deny that our justification can be earned as the result of our good works, there are many verses like Romans 2:13 that support that only doers of the law will be justified, so clearly there must be reasons why our justification requires us to choose to be doers of the law other than in order to earn as a wage, such as faith insofar as Romans 3:31 says that our faith upholds God's law.

In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant still involves following the Torah, and in Galatians 3:24-25, our justification by faith in Jesus also involves following the Torah. The Torah is God's word and Jesus is God's word made flesh, so it is contradictory to want to have faith in God's word made flesh for salvation while not wanting to have faith in God's word for salvation.

 

[JohnD70X7]

I agree with those verses, so my problem is not with those verses, but with your misunderstanding of them

No, with your refusal to accept them.

 

[Soyeong]

No, with your refusal to accept them.

It would be just as incorrect for me to claim that you refuse to accept those verses because I disagree with your interpretation of them as it is for you to insist that I refuse to accept them because you disagree with my interpretation of them. I accept them, I spoke in regard to how I think that they should be interpreted, and if you disagree, then I invite you to discuss why, but if you don't accept my interpretation and don't want to discuss why, then that is your prerogative, however, it is a lie for you to insist that I refuse to accept them.

 

[JohnD70X7]

It would be just as incorrect for me to claim that you refuse to accept those verses because I disagree with your interpretation of them as it is for you to insist that I refuse to accept them because you disagree with my interpretation of them. I accept them, I spoke in regard to how I think that they should be interpreted, and if you disagree, then I invite you to discuss why, but if you don't accept my interpretation and don't want to discuss why, then that is your prerogative, however, it is a lie for you to insist that I refuse to accept them.

The difference between you and I being, I take the verses at face value. You interpolate them with your long drawn out explanations based on your feelings.

 

[JohnD70X7]

As I said, you refuse to see it other than the way you feel. I'm done trying to convince you otherwise and I would appreciate it if you showed me the same courtesy.

 

[Soyeong]

The difference between you and I being, I take the verses at face value. You interpolate them with your long drawn out explanations based on your feelings.

It Jeremiah 31:33, it says that the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so how it not taking that verse at face value to say that the New Covenant involves following the Torah? Likewise, in Ephesians 2:8-10, it denies that our salvation is the result of doing good works lest anyone should boast and that we are new creation in Christ to do good works, so how is it not taking it as face value that our salvation involves doing good works? Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Torah by word and by example, how it taking Galatians 3:24-25 at face value to say that the Torah brings us to Christ so that we can then reject what he taught and go back to living in sin, especially when that is contrary to the surrounding verses? If I disagree with how you have interpreted a verse, then I try to give any many reasons to make the strongest case that I can to explain why I disagree, which only increases the strength of my argument, but I have never given an explanation based on my feelings.

As I said, you refuse to see it other than the way you feel. I'm done trying to convince you otherwise and I would appreciate it if you showed me the same courtesy.

Please quote from this thread where I've spoken about the way that I feel. If you don't want to respond, ten that is your prerogative, but it just seems bizarre to me that you'd accuse me of making explanations based on my feelings, especially in lieu of explaining why you disagree with my interpretations.

 

[JohnD70X7]

It Jeremiah 31:33, it says that the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so how it not taking that verse at face value to say that the New Covenant involves following the Torah? Likewise, in Ephesians 2:8-10, it denies that our salvation is the result of doing good works lest anyone should boast and that we are new creation in Christ to do good works, so how is it not taking it as face value that our salvation involves doing good works? Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Torah by word and by example, how it taking Galatians 3:24-25 at face value to say that the Torah brings us to Christ so that we can then reject what he taught and go back to living in sin, especially when that is contrary to the surrounding verses? If I disagree with how you have interpreted a verse, then I try to give any many reasons to make the strongest case that I can to explain why I disagree, which only increases the strength of my argument, but I have never given an explanation based on my feelings.



Please quote from this thread where I've spoken about the way that I feel. If you don't want to respond, ten that is your prerogative, but it just seems bizarre to me that you'd accuse me of making explanations based on my feelings, especially in lieu of explaining why you disagree with my interpretations.

Nope.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Torah can only be kept by anyone other than Messiah by the imputed righteousness of Messiah through faith in him (B"H). When we are saved we are no longer under Torah (Galatians 3:24-25) but unt the New Covenant of Grace.

If there is no Law then there is no sin, what need is there for grace? Sin is the transgression of the law.

 

[fhansen]

In order for one thing to make something else obsolete, it needs to do everything that it does and more, so the New Covenant makes the Mosaic Covenant obsolete insofar as it still involves following the Torah (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6-7). In Galatians 3:16-19, the promises of a covenant that has been ratified are not made void by later covenants, so again newer covenants are inclusive of older ones. There are many verses that say that the Mosaic Covenant is eternal, so again it can only be made obsolete by a covenant that is inclusive of it plus more.

In Deuteronomy 30:1-10, it prophesies about a time when the Israelites will return from exile, God will circumcise their hearts, and they will return to obedience to the Torah. In Ezekiel 36:26-27 and Jeremiah 31:33, they are speaking in regard to the New Covenant, the return of the Israelites from exile, and God circumcising our hearts by means of the Spirit by saying that He will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His spirit to lead us in obedience to the Torah, and where God will put the Torah in our minds and write it on our hearts. In Romans 2:25-29, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Torah, which is the same way to tell for a Jew, and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those who have uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey the Torah. So the New Covenant is all about Israel returning from exile and returning to obedience to the Torah.

This is true. Teachings I'm familiar with state that the old covenant was never revoked, but rather was made obsolete by a new and better covenant that could finally accomplish in us what the old could not. This has been the teaching of the church since time immemorial as far as I'm aware.

 

[Soyeong]

This is true. Teachings I'm familiar with state that the old covenant was never revoked, but rather was made obsolete by a new and better covenant that could finally accomplish in us what the old could not. This has been the teaching of the church since time immemorial as far as I'm aware.

The Mosaic Covenant did what it was given to do and people were saved by grace through faith in accordance with being under that covenant. The fault that God found with the Mosaic Covenant was not with its terms as though it could not do what it was given to do, but rather God found fault with the people for not continuing in it, which is why the New Covenant still involves following the Torah while being based on better promises and having a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:7-10).